Feminism is not a dirty word

The victories of the women's movement have caused many to question whether it is still needed. So great is the skepticism for its continued role that "feminism" has become a dirty word. Feminist are generally portrayed and ridiculed as "man haters," "feminazis," and "ideologues." This is an unfortunate and inaccurate caricature.

A feminist is committed to the following three claims: 1) women and men ought to be moral, political, social, and economic equals, 2) societal perspectives, institutions, and power structures have and continue to prevent full equality of men and women, at the expense of women (patriarchy), and, 3) justice requires that we work to change the patriarchal systems that place women in a position below men. Other than a broad commitment to justice for all people and activism to ensure it, one need believe nothing in addition to these three claims to be a feminist. When that is understood, can anyone not say that feminism is correct? Bell Hooks is right "feminism is for everybody."

Recent events make it all the more necessary for those of us who truly believe in working for a world in which men and women are really equal. The time has come to proudly reclaim the feminist label.

Some extremists on the right wing of the political divide are waging a kind of war on the rights and dignity of women. Angry Catholic Bishops shout out that they will not pay for birth control. All male panels testify to congress about their "religious freedom" - the freedom to refuse to cover women's family planning!. Republicans in a number of states attempt to force pregnant women to undergo a transvaginal ultra-sound if they want an abortion; even if the woman was raped!

If all this were not bad enough, when women and those of us who love them protest these draconian measures as disregarding women's rights, we have people respond that women should just put aspirin between their knees like the good old days! Meaning, sadly, that if women don't want to get pregnant they should just never have sex. Even worse, some clueless pundits, with more contempt for women than brains, claim that transvaginal ultra-sounds cannot be invasive since "they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy."

This is all familiar right wing moral fanaticism. It's nothing more than a way of attempting to control women by implying that they are "sluts" and "deserve it" if they have an unwanted pregnancy. It's nonsense. But the fact that so many still think and speak this way is proof that feminism is very much still needed.

But what of those who reject the puritanical moralism of the right? What of those who fancy themselves free, open, and non-censorious about sexual mores? Unfortunately many of these types are no better. Not only is there a massive market for Internet porn that overwhelming portrays women as violently dominated by men but "shock jocks" like Howard Stern, whose entire career is almost nothing but demeaning and insulting women, are more popular than ever.

To take a very recent example, Stern spent a large segment of an interview with Adam Levine, trying to figure out why Christina Aguilera has gained weight. He lamented the fact that she was no longer "hot" and called her "plus sized," clearly repulsed by the Cuvier-than-before pop star. Aguilera is a beautiful and talented woman, and it serves Stern's misogynistic purposes to try and put her down so crudely ... not to mention the ongoing image problems and eating disorders among women that he and his brood revel in.

The moral of the story is simple. We do not live in a world where women are fully equal with men. We should, but we don't. Patriarchy is working, much more overtly recently, not only to keep women down, but to push them back.

The women's movement must fight on!

In Defense of Erin Andrews and her Wardrobe

Erin Andrews is now being attacked for wearing "sexy" outfits on dancing with the stars. First by Elizabeth Hasselbeck and now by the New York Daily article. Here is what the Daily piece claims:

Andrews' "Dancing With the Stars" stint fulfills a longtime dream. Dancing has been her own sport; she was a member of the University of Florida Gators basketball dance team while at the school. Can't a female journalist dance?

Sure, but the trouble is that Andrews wants it both ways. She wants to be considered a journalist. She wants to be the observer, not the observed. But a journalist uncovers the facts, not her navel.

Let's face it: Andrews is a sports sidelines reporter. While she undoubtedly knows the games she covers, she's still there as eye candy.

She was voted America's Sexiest Sportscaster - twice - by Playboy, and accepted the kudos. She's posed for racy photoshoots in Sports Illustrated and GQ. She has sought celebrity.

But when when the peephole perv story broke and the paparazzi transformed her from storyteller to The Story, she called 911 and yelled to the operator, "I'm being treated like f---ing Britney Spears!" (Ironically, she employs Spears' stylist Paige Geran to dress her for her ESPN gigs.)

Now that "Dancing with the Stars" is over, Andrews is going to have to decide whether she wants to be a proper journalist or continue to be a journalistic lightweight who's light on her feet.

This is the classic problem of seeing women as either "sex objects" or as someone we should take seriously. They cannot, on this view, be both. That is sheer nonsense, and it should not be allowed to pass without response. A woman has every right to celebrate her body and to be taken seriously as a professional. Furthermore, Ms. Andrews' outfits on dancing with the stars were hardly as objectionable as this article would have it; but even if they were, that does not nullify her skills as a journalist.

The worst part of this article is its rather shocking implication that Andrews deserves to be objectified because she has accepted playboy's claim that she is sexy (where by the way, is the proof for this assertion? Furthermore, what does it even mean?!), and employs Britney Spears' stylist. This is outrageous and plays to the absurd prejudice that women are somehow at least partially responsible for cases in which they are reprehensibly exploited.

Erin Andrews has posed for sexy pictures. Erin Andrews bared some flesh for dancing with the stars. Erin Andrews is quite a beauty. So What? This has no bearing on her ability as a journalist and it should not effect our assessment of her skills, nor the level of professionalism she is accorded as an ESPN broadcaster.

I for one think Ms. Andrews (and any other woman) has every right to bare her mid-section AND be taken seriously as a journalist.

Shakira caves to Sexism

Shakira has sold out.

Her latest album features "Britney-like" computer voice and sound. It's even worse than I just made that sound. But that does not bother me, I don't really care much what Shakira sounds like (though in my opinion her first album - and even more so her Spanish music - is quite good). The problem is deeper.

Shakira also is said to be deliberately posing like Beyonce - not exactly a role model for young ladies. But again, that is not even the issue. If a woman wishes to pose in this manner I shall not say anything about her personal choice.

So what is the problem? As you probably guessed, it's this picture of Shakira, practically naked - what is covering her seems painted on! - IN A CAGE!!

A virtually naked woman in a seductive pose caged like an animal. This reeks of blatant misogyny! It can only mean one thing: "Women are property; they are less than fully human. We may, therefore, do what we wish to these "lower beings" who apparently only exist to satisfy our lust and who are therefore locked in a cage the rest of the time!"

This is really appalling!

Sadly, the woman in this cage - Shakira - has not only produced music that actually has depth and quality, but also has an IQ of 140 and takes college courses whenever she can.

Don't get me wrong. Shakira is gorgeous. She has a lovely body and I think she should own that. But this picture is NOT owning that. This is exploitation of female sexuality to sell albums. That a woman of intelligence, depth, and talent feels she must engage in this kind of stunt is truly very sad.

Why Martin Luther King Jr loved Star Trek

I sometimes find empowerment in unexpected places. My friend Jay reminded me of an anecdote the other day. The anecdote is about a meeting between Nichelle Nichols (who played Lt. Uhura on Star Trek) and Martin Luther King Jr.

This video recounts the anecdote and speaks for itself:



Some object to the fact that Uhura was portrayed in a tiny mini-skirt and thus cannot be considered a figure of empowerment, contrary to what Nichelle Nichols claims here. But remember the time, there were no black women portrayed in positions of equality and authority then ... there were few women portrayed in such positions period!

Remember that civil and human rights dimension the next time you see Star Trek and if you should see the new film (which I enjoyed) ask yourself, is the presentation of Uhura faithful to that original spirit of empowerment?

One final thought: The first interacial kiss on American Television was between the characters Uhura and Jim Kirk ... "boldly going where no one has gone before" indeed.

What is a Feminist?

Friday I attended the kick off of Marquette's new Women and Gender Studies program. It was very insightful and intelligent. I like the look of the program.

I went to two talks: one focusing on concepts of gender in the Health sciences. One of the speakers there spoke of the struggles of veterans within the framework of the paradigm of conventional masculinity - a reminder that "gender studies" includes men too!

What particularly stood out to me, however, was a session called something like "Do you call yourself a feminist? What's in a label."

The Interesting points of the conversation centered on why the label "feminist" has such negative connotations and whether we should reject the label and simply embrace the views and positions.

I said there, and I repeat here, that we cannot drop labels merely because some groups heap negative connotations on them. If we allow "feminism" to be a dirty word, then once we champion feminist ideas we are inviting ourselves to be dismissed as "those rotten feminists" and considered "beyond the pale" of appropriate social discourse.

Also mentioned were basic mis-perceptions of what feminism is about, and some suggestions about what it might really be about. In that vein, I stumbled upon the following videos ... which are much in the same spirit:

First the misperceptions and ignorace:



Now an accurate view of feminism:

The Vagina Monologues at Marquette

The other night my fiance and I took in The Vagina Monologues at Marquette. Well, sort of at Marquette, I don't think it was officially sanctioned by the school and I'm not sure it was actually on campus grounds.

It was the first time I had seen the play (though I had seen a couple scenes acted out and heard about some others). I have to say first that it was hit. Well acted, alternately funny (Ms. Ali Fagnan acted out a monologue that had me laughing so hard my face literraly hurt), horrifying, deep, and thought provoking.

The basic premise of the play, as I understood it, is that women are alienated from their own femaleness. Patriarchal culture forces women to see themselves as the other, as the "second sex."

The symbol of the vagina is used quite nicely to this effect. A common theme in the monologues is that women find their vaginas ugly or disturbing and are called upon to see it instead as something beautiful and essential to who they are. In other words, their femaleness is not something to fear and loathe, but to embrace and celebrate.

The standard criticism of The Vagina Monologues is that it is vulgar and reduces women to their "sexual parts." Nothing could be further from the truth. The play is about empowering women to claim their femaleness as something powerful, and the language is intended to subvert hostile actions and intentions against women.

Finally, in keeping with a long tradition of performing the monologues to increase awareness of violence against women, this version of the play donated all the proceeds to pay for two surgeries to repair vaginal fistulas.

The play's candid look at violence (both physical and psychological) is probably the most remarkable and startling feature of it.

Empowerment or Exploitation?

Lately I've been pondering the rise of explicit sexuality in our culture over the last 15-20 years. In particular, things like stripping and porn have become somewhat mainstream; take for instance cardio striptease classes.

Many claim that this is empowering for women, that they are expressing their sexuality. I'm doubtful. In a recent book, Female Chauvinist Pigs, journalist Ariel Levy, proclaims that there is something profoundly un-liberating about this phenomenon.

Her central thesis is that today's "raunch culture" is not an encouragement of personal sexual expression and healthy sexual appetite, but a highly commercialized and mass produced "commodity" that strips us and our sex lives of all particularity and fulfillment.

There is some video of Levy discussing this claim.

Here is Levy on the "Girls Gone Wild" phenomena:



and here she is on Playboy:



I think she raises some fascinating questions. And I wonder, when is it healthy sexual expression and empowerment, and when is it exploitation? How can we establish a clear criteria? Can we? Should we?